Via the National Institute on Money in State Politics comes this interesting tidbit this morning:
Helena, Mont.— While conventional wisdom holds that an anti-incumbent mood is sweeping the country, statistics indicate that mood faces long odds of overcoming the overwhelming power of incumbency and the unyielding fundraising advantage that comes with incumbency. The success of incumbents has been gradually increasing since the 2001–2002 elections, when 89 percent of incumbents won.
Two new reports from the National Institute on Money in State Politics examine the role that money and incumbency played in the 2007–2008 elections.
The first report, The Role of Money & Incumbency in 2007–2008 State Elections, found that incumbents who held the fundraising advantage were re-elected 96 percent of the time. In fact, in twelve states, not a single top money-raising incumbent was defeated. Candidates with just the incumbency advantage were re-elected 94 percent of the time.
The second report, Competitiveness in 2007–2008 State Legislative Races: No Contest?, found that only 22 percent of state legislative candidates had a monetarily competitive race. Four major patterns emerged when studying monetary competitiveness. The first was regional differences: states in the Midwest and Mountain West had the highest number of competitive races. Second was public funding: five of the ten most-competitive states offered public funding for campaigns. The third trend was expense of elections: seven of the ten most-competitive states ranked among the most inexpensive legislative races in the country. The final involved business contributions: three of the states (Georgia, Florida, and New Mexico) whose candidates received the most direct contributions from business and special interests were among the least competitive, while three states (Minnesota, Montana, and Connecticut) with the smallest amount of business contributions were among the most competitive.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics collects and analyzes campaign contribution information on state-level candidates, political party committees, and ballot committees. Its free, searchable database of contributions, as well as the full text of these reports, is available at FollowTheMoney.org.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Not in 2010!!!
Money won’t buy you love no more! Ask the special interests in the recent WTA vote!!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 6th, 2010 at 10:09 AM
They’re talking about money & incumbency, goofus. Not about money. But money still will get you honey!
May 6th, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Incumbents in our state get lobby and PAC money automatically dumped on them, even if they don’t hunt for it. Most incumbents get as much as $100,000 to $200,000 thrown at them, some of it from factions that the legislator doesn’t even vote favorably for. The lobby forces just want to make sure that they have paid into the well.
May 6th, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Most incumbents? Better check your facts!!!
May 6th, 2010 at 11:14 AM
My dear GHK, money is what gets you your incumbency moreso than anything else, ok name rec helps, but the ability to earmark, etc; gets one the pay back at election time, that’s where the money comes rolling in from.
But today the money will not buy you the forgiveness required to get you elected with the harm you have done with your incumbency (for those who have really been part of the harm doing) as it use too, methinks!
So much can not be forgiven anymore!
2010 is different!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 6th, 2010 at 4:03 PM
You are correct, in my case, AFY. My party has mutated into something that I won’t touch with a 10″ pole. In fact, I will actively work to unseat those incumbents that I voted for. They have been in office so long that they are completely out of touch and have let it be known that they are not interested in being in touch. Those hacks would include Murray, Larsen and Gregoire. I’ve had enough of their misrepresentation. There, I said it.
May 6th, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Fern - when was the last time you voted for a Democrat? I’m curious about the things you’ve said about being a former Democrat. You seem to say you feel tricked, but I’m unclear in what way you feel tricked and about what?
May 6th, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Hey ST, I voted for a democratic in the last mayor’s election, does that make me a democratic?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 6th, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Yes, my dear Afster, holding office does have its advantages; even locally. And not just at campaign time! You’d be amazed who will pay you for your advice.
But overcoming incumbency takes a lot of work getting out the word; which is difficult when incumbents can pay for so much more free speech than their challengers.
That’s why I’m with you on term limits. None of them are indispensable. We’ve plenty of talented people. And who wants to invest in a politician with a six or eight year shelf life and little to gain from seniority.
May 6th, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Of course it does, AFY. I hope you’ve sent in your mandatory contribution to the National Democratic Committee.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Floyd, chill.
I said “as much as” and then quoted a range highly relevant to our district. Admittedly, when Quall and Morris have run unopposed, they might only pick up $75,000 or so. But when there is a race, the incumbent war chest looks like this :
2006
BRANDLAND DALE $191,539.48
ERICKSEN DOUGLAS $126,624.03
LINVILLE KELLI $109,691.92
2008
ERICKSEN DOUGLAS $141,641.03
LINVILLE KELLI $139,674
MORRIS JEFFREY $125,093
These figures are not made up of mostly $50 donations from individual voters.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Hey ST, yous think I might get a nifty name tag with a donkey on it, if I’s did!
That’s something worth considering for sure!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
May 7th, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Sam,
I voted for Murray, Larsen and Gregoire, as well as many other dems, in their respective last elections. I feel betrayed by the total takeover of my party by the progressive ELEMENT, whose propensity for BIG GOVERNMENT, is not in line with the US constitution, but is in line with their socialist agenda. I feel they are and will continue to, destroy our republic and the free market. Take the FCC’s decision to circumvent the courts to gain control of the internet. I don’t approve of these shady “basketball” politics. The administration seems to think this business of running the country is little more than a game. They forget that we have seen thousands of head-fakes and hip-checks, before. I apologize if I sound passionate. I guess I am. I support limited government, state and individual rights. I don’t support deficit spending and bought politicians who call their constituents angry, racist white people and spew Saul Alinsky at me, as if I didn’t know Saul in my youth. I was not happy with the Bush Admin. either, for taking my rights through the Patriot Act, which was renewed, recently! They were also capitalist crooks, but at least I can understand capitalism. I cannot and will not ever espouse socialism as a system that works, because it doesn’t. Greece is a good example of where an endless system of entitlements will take us. It is unsustainable, plain and simple. Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. And yes, they know how I think and feel. They just don’t care. Time to vote for someone who does. The swamp has not been drained, as promised. In fact, they’ve come out and slapped us in the face with dirty politics, Chicago-style. Thanks for asking.